Commercial Item Contracts: Terminations for Convenience. Written by Nick Sanders
|
|
- Gervase Daniels
- 6 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 For the past 20 years the Federal government in particular the Department of Defense has focused on buying as many commercial items as possible. The focus has been driven both by statute and by regulation. As the DoD s Commercial Item Handbook (Version 2.0) states Title VIII of the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act (Public Law ) established the statutory requirements for acquiring commercial items. Section 8104 of the Act specifies a preference for commercial item acquisitions. Section 8105 specifies that certain provisions of law do not apply to acquisitions of items that meet the definition of a commercial item when acquired by the Government. Further, Section 8002 limits the types of clauses that may be included in a contract for an item meeting the statutory commercial item definition and acquired under 48 CFR, Chapter 1, Part 12 (Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) part 12). FAR implementation of the Act provided acquisition officials with wide latitude to use judgment in deciding whether a Government need can be met by an item that meets the commercial item definition. However, neither the Act itself nor the FAR implementation specifies how this decision is to be made or at what level within an organization it is to be made. These are established in the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) and the DFARS Procedures, Guidance and Information (PGI). Consistency in the use of established approaches to acquire commercial supplies and services should exist across the Department. Thus, for the past 20 years Federal buyers have been seeking commercial items to acquire, albeit with mixed success. While the Federal government spends literally billions of dollars each year on commercial items, most of those items are of the paper clip and pencil variety. In other words, several commenters have asserted that there has not been enough effort made to qualify contractor-provided goods as commercial items especially within the DoD. They have asserted that Contracting Officers are too slow in making their commerciality determinations, that they are too quick to reject items as being non-qualifying, and that both DCMA and DCAA have a propensity to second-guess prime contractors commerciality determinations with respect to their lower-tier suppliers, leading to questioned and disallowed costs. Recently, the DoD has moved to centralize commerciality determinations and has established a goal of making those determinations in 10 days or less. That plan has not gone over well with contractors, according to this story at GovExec.com. The story quoted from a letter sent by the Professional Services Council (PSC) to Rep. Mac Thornberry, the sponsor of acquisition reform legislation. The letter said 1 / 7
2 There are thousands of commercial items determinations made each year and requiring that they all be conducted by one office, disconnected from the customer base and the acquisition offices, will almost certainly result in procurement delays Since commercial items determinations are among the core responsibilities of a contracting officer, rather than negat[ing] that training and removing that authority from contracting officers, we would recommend that the training continue and Congress direct an assessment of such efforts to see if the training has been effective and where additional focus may be necessary. As a matter of fact, there is a solid basis for Contracting Officers to be skeptical or even suspicious of contractors claims of commerciality. Most of us should remember the Boeing tanker fiasco, which at one point involved the claim of commerciality for green aircraft that were significantly modified to meet military requirements, such that there was little likelihood they could be sold to the general public. (Unless the general public suddenly found a need to refuel the jet fighters parked in their garages.) Given the history (and political finger-pointing) associated with problematic claims of commerciality, it s rational for Contracting Officers (and auditors) to take a second look at such claims to ensure there is a valid basis for them. But the difference between a second look and an automatic rejection is huge, and there is no legitimate statutory, regulatory, or policy basis for failing to support an otherwise valid commerciality claim. Notwithstanding the problems associated with commerciality determinations, the Federal government and the Department of Defense manage to award quite a few of commercial item contracts, using the procedures found at FAR Part 12. Some of those commercial contracts will be terminated for convenience. How does that work? The first thing to know is that the normal termination protocols of FAR Part 49 and the Cost Principle at FAR don t operate for terminations for convenience (T4Cs) associated with commercial item contracts awarded under FAR Part 12 procedures. Instead, the requirements of the contract clause ( Contract Terms and Conditions Commercial Items, May 2015) establish termination procedures for commercial item contracts. That being said, Contracting Officers may use the Part 49 T4C procedures as guidance to the extent there is no conflict with the termination procedures established by / 7
3 According to the termination procedures of , in a T4C the contractor will be paid as follows: - The percentage of the contract price reflecting the percentage of the work performed prior to the notice of the termination, plus - Any charges the contractor can demonstrate directly resulted from the termination. With respect to the termination charges, the standard clause language provides that those charges must be reasonable in amount and must be demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Government using the contractor s standard record keeping system. The clause expressly states that The Contractor shall not be required to comply with the cost accounting standards or contract cost principles for this purpose. This paragraph does not give the Government any right to audit the Contractor s records. However, The Contractor shall not be paid for any work performed or costs incurred which reasonably could have been avoided. Seems clear enough. But appearances can be deceiving. Recently, the ASBCA heard an appeal from Dellew Corporation in which Dellew sought to recover $279,558 in unrecovered amounts and settlement and proposal preparation costs following the T4C of its firm, fixed-priced FAR Part 12 commercial item contract. The kicker here is that the government, in its wisdom, decided to incrementally fund the commercial item contract. The contract was modified to incorporate the DFARS contract clause ( Limitation of Government s Obligation, May 2006) which established a notification requirement: the contractor was required to notify the Contracting Officer is writing at least ninety days prior to the date when the work will reach a point in which the total amount 3 / 7
4 payable by the Government, including any cost for termination for convenience, will approximate 85 percent of the total amount then allotted to the contract. Which is ridiculous on its face and possibly tantamount to a violation of the implied duty of good faith and fair dealing. The ability to track spending and project spending against incremental funds is not an attribute of the average commercial standard record keeping system. Instead, that is an attribute of a sophisticated accounting system, one used by experienced contractors to account for project costs charged to cost-reimbursement and other complex contracts awarded pursuant to FAR Part 15 procedures. It is an attribute of an adequate accounting system and is a requirement found in the Standard Form 1408, which is used to evaluate the adequacy of a contractor s accounting system prior to award of a FAR Part 15 contract. There is no way poor Dellew was ever going to be able to comply with the onerous requirements associated with that DFARS contract clause. Moreover, the clause requires the contractor to track a termination liability, since the T4C costs must be included in the required cost projections. It s doubtful that any commercial business even knows what a termination liability is, let alone knows how to account for it and project it in calculations of future project costs. In sum, we assert (as non-lawyers) that there is a decent argument here that Dellew was induced into a commercial item contract, a contract into which the Government insidiously inserted, after award and with no prior notice, non-commercial item requirements, requirements with which it knew (or should have known) that Dellew could never comply. But so what? Dellew signed the bilateral contract modification, very likely without much in the way of thought or trepidation. We re guessing Dellew never knew what it was signing. As we ve opined before, contractors need to be careful what they sign and Dellew learned its lesson the hard way. And then the government terminated Dellew s contract for convenience. The other kicker here is the government, in its wisdom, did not terminate the contract effective on the day of the T4C notice. Nope. Instead, it submitted the T4C notice on April 2, 2012, to be 4 / 7
5 effective October 1, 2012, almost exactly six months in the future. And the government expected Dellew to know how to handle that strange situation, which would flummox many sophisticated defense contractors. The actual termination language in the standard clause is quite clear. It says The Government reserves the right to terminate this contract, or any part hereof, for its sole convenience. In the event of such termination, the Contractor shall immediately stop all work hereunder and shall immediately cause any and all of its suppliers and subcontractors to cease work. Nothing in that language hints at a government right to terminate at a future date. Indeed, how would a commercial contractor immediately stop all work hereunder and immediately cause any and all of its suppliers and subcontractors to cease work when the termination date is in the future? How would that work and we assert that not even the best contract minds at Lockheed Martin could figure that out with certitude, let alone the contract minds at Dellew. Again, to our ill-educated minds, such actions hint at a violation of the implied duty of good faith and fair dealing at best, or to an inducement at worst. Yet Dellow persevered and attempted to perform its contract to the best of its ability. A month after receiving its T4C notice, Dellew submitted its required 85% notification letter. In that letter, Dellew stated it would hit its funding limit on July 31, It stated it needed an additional increment of funds ( $250,000 to $300,000 ) in order to perform through September 30, 2012, In addition, Dellew stated that it needed an additional $250,000 to $300,000 for settlement expenses and termination costs, including overhead costs continuing after the termination employee paid time off and vacation pay accumulated at the date of termination, settlement expenses and proposal preparation costs, and profit on those costs consistent with the margin on the terminated contract. The Contracting Officer did not respond to that notification. However, on June 28, 2012, the contract was terminated for convenience via contract modification. Note that, consistent with our inducement theory, the contract was not terminated on the date stated in the April 2, 2012, T4C notification letter. Instead, the contract was terminated three 5 / 7
6 months earlier than the date the contractor was led to expect. None of the requested additional funds had been provided. Instead, the government paid Dellew $1,119, which was the amount of funds that had been incrementally provided. Thus, should we be surprised that when Dellew submitted a Termination Settlement Proposal (TSP) in the amount of $279,641 it was rejected by the Contracting Officer? Instead, the CO offered Dellew $26,011, which was the amount of Dellew s settlement expenses plus G&A (without any fee). Dellew submitted a properly certified claim for the full amount it believe it was entitled to receive. The CO granted the $26,011 and denied the remainder of the claim. Dellew appealed to the ASBCA. Dellew argued that the inclusion of DFARS changed the deal. Instead of following the standard termination language in the clause, both clauses had to be read together in harmony. Administrative Judge Page rejected that theory. Writing for the Board, she stated None of the language in DFARS indicates that it is a remedy granting clause of the contract that would entitle a contractor to recovery of particular items in the event of a convenience termination. Ultimately, any entitlement to termination settlement expenses due appellant must be established through the process prescribed by FAR (1). Judge Page then proceeded to analyze the three prongs of contractor recovery established by In her analysis, the three prongs are: 1. The price of work performed under the contract prior to the termination 2. Settlement expenses 3. Costs resulting from the termination 6 / 7
7 Judge Page confirmed what we noted above, which is that the price of work performed prior to termination is determined via a calculation based on the percentage of work completed times the contract price. (We note she did not address the unique facts of this case, where Dellew's contract was incrementally funded at at amount less than the full FFP contract price awarded.) With respect to Item 2, settlement expenses, Judge Page wrote Settlement expenses include those expenses incurred by the contractor for the preparation and presentation of settlement claims to the CO. It is well established that settlement expenses, including legal expenses, are generally allowable. However, a contractor is only entitled to those settlement expenses that are reasonably necessary for the preparation and presentation of the termination settlement proposal. Judge Page also wrote that the third item is for costs incurred by the contractor that were incurred only because the contract had been terminated. These costs do not relate to work completed but, instead, are reimbursed to fairly compensate the contractor whose contract has been terminated. She referenced FAR (b) for a list of examples of such costs. That's an interesting approach to take, given that the clause language (which we quoted earlier in this article) expressly states that the Cost Principles do not apply to commercial item terminations for convenience. While Judge Page s analysis provides good information for contractors with Part 12 commercial item contracts that get terminated for convenience, her analysis was of little help to Dellew. Judge Page rejected both Dellew s and the Government s Motions for Summary Judgment, and we expect the parties will either settle their dispute or proceed to trial. Should there be a trial, we look forward to hearing the Government s explanation for its seemingly abnormal treatment of this contractor. 7 / 7
Let s be clear: Contractors ignore the LoC/LoF clause requirements at their own peril.
As consultants to a diverse group of government contractors, we frequently find ourselves in the position of having to explain requirements associated with various solicitation provisions and contract
More informationARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS Appeal of-- Green Bay Logistic Services Co. Under Contract No. H92237-16-C-0030 APPEARANCE FOR THE APPELLANT: ASBCA No. 61063 Mr. Mohammad Nazar Vice President
More informationWritten by Nick Sanders Wednesday, 01 February :00 - Last Updated Tuesday, 31 January :26
Technology Systems, Inc. (TSI) was a small business. (We say was because the company is no longer operating.) It had been a government contractor since 1987. It received and performed cost-type contracts.
More informationARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS Appeal of-- The Boeing Company Under Contract No. F34601-97-C-0211 APPEARANCES FOR THE APPELLANT: ) ) ) ) ) ASBCA No. 57409 Richard J. Vacura, Esq. K. Alyse Latour,
More informationThe Allowability of Defense Base Act Insurance. Written by Nick Sanders
A couple of themes seem to recur in the annals of Apogee Consulting, Inc. s blog. That s not really surprising, since we ve been publishing the blog for more than 6 years now. It should be expected that
More information(We have reported on several of the CWC hearings and reports before. To find those stories, type CWC in the search window on the website.
On July 26, 2010, the Commission on Wartime Contracting in Iraq and Afghanistan (CWC) held a hearing entitled Subcontracting: Who s Minding the Store to address concerns about the subcontracting process
More informationRecent Developments in Contract Costs and Accounting. Terry L. Albertson J. Catherine Kunz Linda S. Bruggeman
Recent Developments in Contract Costs and Accounting Terry L. Albertson J. Catherine Kunz Linda S. Bruggeman CAS: Affected Contracts On CAS-covered contracts, Govt is entitled to price adjustments to reflect
More informationDCMA Manual Terminations. Implements: DCMA-INST 2501, Contract Maintenance, August 15, October 10, 2014
DCMA Manual 2501-06 Terminations Office of Primary Responsibility Contract Maintenance Effective: October 2, 2018 Releasability: Cleared for public release Implements: DCMA-INST 2501, Contract Maintenance,
More informationAs the newly reconstituted Cost Accounting
This material reprinted from Government Contract Costs, Pricing & Accounting Report appears here with the permission of the publisher, Thomson/West. Further use without the permission of West is prohibited.
More informationTERMINATION AHEAD SLOW DOWN
Contract Terminations Not So Convenient Presented by Paul Slemons & Darrell M. Hineman TERMINATION AHEAD SLOW DOWN Please Read This presentation has been prepared for information purposes and general guidance
More informationIt s inevitable, really.
It s inevitable, really. Given the budget pressure on the Federal government which already includes the use of Continuing Resolutions in lieu of budget appropriations, and may well include automatic sequestration
More informationARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS. Appeals of -- ) ) Applied Companies, Inc. ) ASBCA Nos , ) Under Contract No. SPO D-0108 )
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS Appeals of -- ) ) Applied Companies, Inc. ) ASBCA Nos. 50749, 54506 ) Under Contract No. SPO450-94-D-0108 ) APPEARANCE FOR THE APPELLANT: APPEARANCE FOR THE GOVERNMENT:
More informationDCAA Audits and the Contract Disputes Act Statute of Limitations. Written by Nick Sanders
We start these types of articles with our usual disclaimer: We are not attorneys; we are not giving legal advice. You should obtain legal advice from a licensed attorney. That said, the fact that we are
More informationD EFENSE FEDERAL ACQUISITION REGULATION SUPPLEMENT (DFARS) FLOWDOWN PROVISIONS FOR
LOCKHEED MARTIN CORPORATION CORPDOC 3A Modified for F-35 JSF LRIP 2 Contract on May 12, 2008 D EFENSE FEDERAL ACQUISITION REGULATION SUPPLEMENT (DFARS) FLOWDOWN PROVISIONS FOR SUBCONTRACTS/PURCHASE ORDERS
More informationARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS Appeal of -- ) ) Individual Development Associates, Inc. ) ASBCA No. 55174 ) Under Contract No. M00264-00-C-0004 ) APPEARANCE FOR THE APPELLANT: APPEARANCES FOR
More informationThat seems to be a problematic approach, right? Think about it: Solving Executive Compensation Concerns with Blended Rates. Written by Nick Sanders
The allowability of contractor executive compensation is a complex, tricky, thing made more tricky by recent statutory and regulatory changes. We have written about some of those rece nt changes before.
More informationFLEMMING & SON CONSTRUCTION (WEST MIDLANDS) LIMITED. -and- THE COMMISSIONERS FOR HER MAJESTY S REVENUE AND CUSTOMS JUDGE KEVIN POOLE BEVERLEY TANNER
[12] UKFTT (TC) TC01900 Appeal numbers: TC/11/01493 TC/11/08678 Income tax construction industry scheme deductions from payments to subcontractors sums representing materials cost not to be subject to
More information(Revised April 28, 2014) ADVANCE PAYMENT POOL (DEC 1991)
(Revised April 28, 2014) 252.232-7000 Advance Payment Pool. As prescribed in 232.412-70(a), use the following clause: ADVANCE PAYMENT POOL (DEC 1991) (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of this contract,
More informationWHEN CAN YOU STOP WORK FOR NONPAYMENT?
WHEN CAN YOU STOP WORK FOR NONPAYMENT? PLANNING AHEAD When an owner or general contractor has not paid a roofing contractor the sums it is owed under the contract, the roofing contractor is faced with
More informationARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS Appeal of -- Dellew Corporation Under Contract No. F A52 l 5-08-C-0008 APPEARANCES FOR THE APPELLANT: ) ) ) ) ) ASBCA No. 58538 Jonathan A. DeMella, Esq. Kate H.
More informationARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS Appeal of -- ) ) International Technology Corporation ) ASBCA No. 54136 ) Under Contract No. N62474-93-D-2151 ) APPEARANCE FOR THE APPELLANT: APPEARANCES FOR THE
More informationARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS Appeal of -- ) ) General Dynamics Corporation ) ASBCA No. 56744 ) Under Contract Nos. N0042I-05-C-0 11 0 ) W52H09-09-C-0012 ) APPEARANCES FOR THE APPELLANT: APPEARANCES
More information(Revised March 3, 2008) ADVANCE PAYMENT POOL (DEC 1991)
(Revised March 3, 2008) 252.232-7000 Advance Payment Pool. As prescribed in 232.412-70(a), use the following clause: ADVANCE PAYMENT POOL (DEC 1991) (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of this contract,
More informationARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS Appeal of -- ) ) Magnum, Inc. ) ASBCA No. 53890 ) Under Contract No. DACA51-96-C-0022 ) APPEARANCE FOR THE APPELLANT: J. Robert Steelman, Esq. Procurement Assistance
More informationIN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JULY TERM v. Case No. 5D
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JULY TERM 2007 THE PLUMBING SERVICE COMPANY, Appellant, v. Case No. 5D06-1586 TRAVELER'S CASUALTY & SURETY COMPANY, etc., Appellee.
More informationCase No (Fire Fighter Vincent DiBona's health insurance benefits) OPINION AND AWARD
AMERICAN ARBITRATION ASSOCIATION In the Matter of the Arbitration X between PROFESSIONAL FIREFIGHTERS ASSOCIATION OF NASSAU COUNTY, LOCAL 1588, laff and VILLAGE OF GARDEN CITY Case No. 01-17-0005-1878
More informationARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS Appeals of-- ) ) The Boeing Company ) ) Under Contract Nos. W911 W6-05-2-0006 ) F A8808-04-C-0022 ) APPEARANCES FOR THE APPELLANT: APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT:
More informationAdequacy of Proposals for. Global Supply Chain
Adequacy of Proposals for Global Supply Chain 1 Adequacy of Proposals Objectives This resource document covers the following: An overview of the proposal process, including applicable FAR (Federal Acquisition
More informationSUPPLEMENTAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR SUBCONTRACTS/PURCHASE ORDERS LRIP 5 (FOR FFP POs) PAGE 1 OF 5
SUPPLEMENTAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR SUBCONTRACTS/PURCHASE ORDERS LRIP 5 (FOR FFP POs) PAGE 1 OF 5 LOCKHEED MARTIN CORPORATION SUPPLEMENTAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR SUBCONTRACTS/PURCHASE ORDERS UNDER
More informationARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS. Appeals of -- ) ) JJM Systems, Inc. ) ASBCA Nos and ) Under Contract No. N C-0534 )
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS Appeals of -- ) ) JJM Systems, Inc. ) ASBCA Nos. 51152 and 52159 ) Under Contract No. N62269-93-C-0534 ) APPEARANCE FOR THE APPELLANT: APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT:
More informationChapter 12. Auditing Contract Termination Delay Disruption and Other Price Adjustment Proposals or Claims
Chapter 12 Auditing Contract Termination Delay Disruption and Other Price Adjustment Proposals or Claims Table of Contents 12-000 Auditing Contract Termination, Delay/Disruption, and Other Price Adjustment
More informationGeneral Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Clauses and Negotiation Tactics-NCURA Region II, May 2011
General Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Clauses and Negotiation Tactics-NCURA Region II, May 2011 Stacey Bucha Senior Negotiator Office of Sponsored Programs The Pennsylvania State University sxg9@psu.edu
More informationSUPPLEMENTAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR SUBCONTRACTS/PURCHASE ORDERS LRIP 5 (FOR FPI/CPI POs) PAGE 1 OF 5. Cost-Plus Incentive (CPI) Fee Geometry
SUPPLEMENTAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR SUBCONTRACTS/PURCHASE ORDERS LRIP 5 (FOR FPI/CPI POs) PAGE 1 OF 5 LOCKHEED MARTIN CORPORATION SUPPLEMENTAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR SUBCONTRACTS/PURCHASE ORDERS UNDER
More informationWebinar: Making the Right Choices in Government Contracting Part 3
Public Contracting Institute LLC Webinar: Making the Right Choices in Government Contracting Part 3 Presented by Richard D. Lieberman, FAR Consultant, Website: www.richarddlieberman.com. Email rliebermanconsultant@gmail.com.
More informationPresenters. Hobie Frady Beason & Nally. Brad English Maynard Cooper & Gale
Presenters Brad English Maynard Cooper & Gale benglish@maynardcooper.com 256.512.5705 Hobie Frady Beason & Nally hfrady@beasonnalley.com 256.533.1720 Preserve Your Right to Obtain an Equitable Adjustment:
More informationARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS. Appeal of -- ) ) Giuliani Associates, Inc. ) ASBCA No ) Under Contract No.
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS Appeal of -- ) ) Giuliani Associates, Inc. ) ASBCA No. 51672 ) Under Contract No. NAS5-96139 ) APPEARANCE FOR THE APPELLANT: APPEARANCE FOR THE GOVERNMENT: Herman
More informationARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS Appeal of-- ) ) Missouri Department of Social Services ) ) Under Contract No. W911S7-09-D-0029 ) APPEARANCE FOR THE APPELLANT: APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: ASBCA
More informationDEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Defense Contract Management Agency INSTRUCTION. Termination for Convenience
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Defense Contract Management Agency INSTRUCTION Termination for Convenience Contracts Directorate DCMA-INST 101 OPR: DCMA-AQ SUMMARY OF CHANGES. This revision adds references and text
More informationU.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY'S URBAN AREAS SECURITY INITIATIVE GRANT PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS FOR PROCUREMENT CONTRACTS
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY'S URBAN AREAS SECURITY INITIATIVE GRANT PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS FOR PROCUREMENT CONTRACTS I. DEFINITIONS A. Agreement means the agreement between City and Contractor to
More informationSequestration and Terminations for Convenience
Sequestration and Terminations for Convenience J. Clark Pendergrass Lanier Ford Shaver & Payne P.C. 2101 West Clinton Ave., Suite 102 Huntsville, AL 35805 256-535-1100 jcp@lanierford.com www.lanierford.com
More informationARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS. Appeal of -- ) ) C. J. Machine, Inc. ) ASBCA No ) Under Contract No. F M-1401 )
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS Appeal of -- ) ) C. J. Machine, Inc. ) ASBCA No. 54249 ) Under Contract No. F41608-00-M-1401 ) APPEARANCE FOR THE APPELLANT: APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: Theodore
More informationMaricopa County Policy/Contract Template Reference. Procurement Standards (http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?node=2: )
200.317 Procurements by states. When procuring property and services under a Federal award, a state must follow the same policies and procedures it uses for procurements from its non-federal funds. The
More informationCAPITAL ONE, N.A., : NO Plaintiff : : CIVIL ACTION - LAW vs. : : JEFFREY L. and TAMMY E. DIEHL, : : Petition to Open Judgment
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF LYCOMING COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CAPITAL ONE, N.A., : NO. 16-0814 Plaintiff : : CIVIL ACTION - LAW vs. : : JEFFREY L. and TAMMY E. DIEHL, : Defendants : Petition to Open Judgment
More informationARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS Appeal of -- ) ) Allison Transmission, Inc. ) ) Under Contract No. DAAE07-99-C-N031 ) APPEARANCES FOR THE APPELLANT: APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: ASBCA No. 59204
More informationINDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR AGREEMENT
INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR AGREEMENT This agreement is entered into as of, 2004, by and between Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (hereinafter called Rensselaer"), a non-profit educational institution with
More informationWritten by Nick Sanders Wednesday, 14 October :00 - Last Updated Monday, 12 October :15
Our recent articles on the dearth of published DCAA audit guidance (called Memoranda for Regional Directors, or MRDs) must have struck a chord, because we started to get emails from people who had access
More informationFEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY S GRANT PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS FOR PROCUREMENT CONTRACTS
FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY S GRANT PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS FOR PROCUREMENT CONTRACTS I. DEFINITIONS A. Agreement means the agreement between City and Contractor to which this document (Federal Emergency
More informationArticle 6 Modification and Termination of Contracts for Supplies and Services
Article 6 Modification and Termination of Contracts for Supplies and Services 16601. Contract Clauses and their Administration 16601. Contract Clauses and their Administration. (a) Introduction. The following
More informationDCAA Update and Limitation on Subcontracting
DCAA Update and Limitation on Subcontracting Bristol Bay Native Corporation 2016 Annual Compliance Conference Stephen D. Knight Smith Pachter McWhorter PLC Scope of Government Audit Rights FAR 52.215-2,
More informationCardholder Agreement. Effective 10/1/17
Cardholder Agreement INTRODUCTION: In this document, the term Agreement means this Cardholder Agreement and the disclosures found in our Important Cost Information about our Credit Card insert that is
More information2. Bidder shall notify Buyer if a former employee of Buyer is representing Bidder in connection with its proposal or any resulting order.
Page: 1 of 5 General Instructions to Bidder 1. Bidder will carefully review all documents cited in Buyer's solicitation to ensure the following: a. All information required to properly respond to this
More informationARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS Appeals of -- ) ) ATK Launch Systems, Inc. ) ASBCA Nos. 55395, 55418, 55812 ) Under Contract Nos. NAS8-38100 et al. ) APPEARANCE FOR THE APPELLANT: APPEARANCES
More informationLOCKHEED MARTIN CORPORATION PRIME SUPPLEMENTAL FLOWDOWN DOCUMENT (PSFD) ADDITIONAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR SUBCONTRACTS/PURCHASE ORDERS UNDER
LOCKHEED MARTIN CORPORATION PRIME SUPPLEMENTAL FLOWDOWN DOCUMENT (PSFD) ADDITIONAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR SUBCONTRACTS/PURCHASE ORDERS UNDER FYOC III C-130 Program Contract FA8625-06-C-6456 Generated
More informationHULL & COMPANY, INC. DBA: Hull & Company MacDuff E&S Insurance Brokers PRODUCER AGREEMENT
HULL & COMPANY, INC. DBA: Hull & Company MacDuff E&S Insurance Brokers PRODUCER AGREEMENT THIS PRODUCER AGREEMENT (this Agreement ), dated as of, 20, is made and entered into by and between Hull & Company,
More informationAMERICAN INTERNATIONAL GROUP, INC. - DECISION - 09/24/04 TAT (E) 00-36(GC) - DECISION
AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL GROUP, INC. - DECISION - 09/24/04 TAT (E) 00-36(GC) - DECISION GENERAL CORPORATION TAX RESPONDENT'S CLAIM THAT LOSSES FROM FOREIGN CURRENCY CONTRACTS, ENTERED INTO IN ORDER TO STABILIZE
More informationCENTURYLINK ELECTRONIC AND ONLINE PAYMENT TERMS AND CONDITIONS
CENTURYLINK ELECTRONIC AND ONLINE PAYMENT TERMS AND CONDITIONS Effective June 1, 2014 The following terms and conditions apply to electronic and online delivery and presentation of your invoices by CenturyLink
More informationSupplemental Government Terms and Conditions
Supplemental Government Terms and Conditions 1. GENERAL: The terms and conditions herein are in addition to Aerojet Terms and Conditions for Purchase Orders, and are incorporated by reference into individual
More informationLOCKHEED MARTIN CORPORATION CORPDOC 4D
LOCKHEED MARTIN CORPORATION CORPDOC 4D FEDERAL ACQUISITION REGULATION (FAR) AND DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY ACQUISITION REGULATION (HSAR) FLOWDOWN PROVISIONS FOR COST REIMBURSEMENT AND T&M SUBCONTRACTS/PURCHASE
More informationEnhance Your Understanding of the Truth in Negotiations Act (TINA)
Enhance Your Understanding of the Truth in Negotiations Act (TINA) Breakout Session # B10 Janie L Maddox, Lecturer, U.S. Naval Postgraduate School Brent Calhoon, Partner, Baker Tilly Samantha Schwellenbach,
More informationGENERAL PROVISIONS FOR STAND-ALONE PURCHASE ORDERS ALL PRODUCTS & SERVICES ~ Not for Use for Services of $2,500 or More ~ (January 2017)
APPLIES TO : 1. Legal Status (OCT 12) 2. Disputes (APR 12) 3. Representations (JAN 17) 4. Advertisements (OCT 12) 5. Audit (FEB 15) 6. Indemnify and Hold Harmless (MAY 15) 7. Authority to Bind (AUG 08)
More informationARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS Appeal of -- ) ) The Swanson Group, Inc. ) ASBCA No. 52109 ) Under Contract No. N68711-91-C-9509 ) APPEARANCE FOR THE APPELLANT: APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT:
More informationSOLICITATION INSTRUCTIONS Bidder will comply with these instructions when responding to this solicitation.
Page : 1 of 4 SOLICITATION INSTRUCTIONS Bidder will comply with these instructions when responding to this solicitation. 1. Responses to this solicitation received after the specified "Bid Close Date"
More informationFR WALMART CREDIT CARD TC PLCC PDF 36620C 9/18
FR833282333 WALMART CREDIT CARD TC PLCC PDF 36620C 9/18 SYNCHRONY BANK SECTION I: RATES AND FEES TABLE PRICING INFORMATION Interest Rates and Interest Charges Annual Percentage Rate (APR) for Purchases
More informationThird District Court of Appeal State of Florida
Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Opinion filed February 21, 2018. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing. No. 3D16-1881 Lower Tribunal No. 15-9465 Liork, LLC and
More informationContractor Learns Importance of Having DCAA-Approved Cost Accounting System the Hard Way
NOTE TO READERS: The Apogee Consulting, Inc. website is likely to be updated only sporadically over the next several weeks. This situation arises from the happy problem that we are SWAMPED WITH WORK and
More informationREAL ESTATE COUNCIL OF ONTARIO DISCIPLINE DECISION
REAL ESTATE COUNCIL OF ONTARIO DISCIPLINE DECISION IN THE MATTER OF A DISCIPLINE HEARING HELD PURSUANT TO BY-LAW NO. 10 OF THE REAL ESTATE COUNCIL OF ONTARIO John Van Dyk Respondent This document also
More informationNORTHWEST INSURANCE LAW
NORTHWEST INSURANCE LAW QUARTERLY NEWSLETTER WINTER 2018 Williams Kastner has been serving clients in the Pacific Nor thwest since our Seattle office opened in 1929. With more than 60 attorneys in offices
More informationLOCKHEED MARTIN CORPORATION PRIME SUPPLEMENTAL FLOWDOWN DOCUMENT (PSFD) ADDITIONAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR SUBCONTRACTS/PURCHASE ORDER UNDER
LOCKHEED MARTIN CORPORATION PRIME SUPPLEMENTAL FLOWDOWN DOCUMENT (PSFD) ADDITIONAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR SUBCONTRACTS/PURCHASE ORDER UNDER JSF LRIP 6 CONTRACT NUMBER N00019-11-C-0083 Generated using
More informationLOCKHEED MARTIN CORPORATION CORPDOC 2A
LOCKHEED MARTIN CORPORATION CORPDOC 2A FEDERAL ACQUISITION REGULATION (FAR) AND DEFENSE FEDERAL ACQUISITION REGULATION SUPPLEMENT (DFARS) FLOWDOWN PROVISIONS FOR SUBCONTRACTS/PURCHASE ORDERS FOR COMMERCIAL
More informationADDITIONAL GENERAL CONDITIONS - COMMERCIAL TIME BASED - SERVICES FOR C-130J EMPENNAGE PRIME CONTRACT NO. F C-2014 DATED 14 MARCH 2003
PROGRAM ADDENDUM 223B (01-05) ADDITIONAL GENERAL CONDITIONS - COMMERCIAL TIME BASED - SERVICES FOR C-130J EMPENNAGE PRIME CONTRACT NO. F33657-03-C-2014 DATED 14 MARCH 2003 Terms T-7 (01-05), entitled "Purchase
More informationARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS Appeal of -- ) ) Alutiiq, LLC ) ASBCA No. 55672 ) Under Contract Nos. N65236-02-P-4187 ) N65236-02-P-4611 ) N65236-03-V-1055 ) N65236-03-V-3047 ) N65236-03-V-4103
More informationARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS Appeal of -- ) ) Walsky Construction Company ) ASBCA No. 52772 ) Under Contract No. F65503-90-C-0021 ) APPEARANCE FOR THE APPELLANT: David M. Freeman, Esq. DeYoung,
More informationSMALL BUSINESS SUBCONTRACTING PLAN (DOD CONTRACTS) BASIC (DEVIATION 2018-O0007) (DEC 2017)
Attachment 1 252.219-7003 Small Business Subcontracting Plan (DoD Contracts) Basic. (DEVIATION 2018-O0007) For solicitations and contracts that contain the basic, Alternate I, or Alternate II of the clause
More informationTHE IMMIGRATION ACT. Heard at Field House Decision & Reasons Promulgated On 8 th February 2018 On 23 rd February Before
Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: THE IMMIGRATION ACT Heard at Field House Decision & Reasons Promulgated On 8 th February 2018 On 23 rd February 2018 Before DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL
More informationPRIME CONTRACT F C-2018 Supplement to Appendix A 27 th Series 15 OCTOBER 2003
LOCKHEED MARTIN CORPORATION PRIME SUPPLEMENTAL FLOWDOWN DOCUMENT (PSFD) ADDITIONAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR SUBCONTRACTS/PURCHASE ORDERS UNDER PRIME CONTRACT F33657-03-C-2018 Supplement to Appendix A 27
More informationSuccessfully Crafting and Prosecuting Contract Disputes Act Claims Against the Government
Successfully Crafting and Prosecuting Contract Disputes Act Claims Against the Government Webinar July 28, 2015 Sandy Hoe shoe@cov.com 202-662-5394 Justin Ganderson jganderson@cov.com 202-662-5422 Agenda
More informationARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS. Appeal of -- ) ) DTS Aviation Services, Inc. ) ASBCA No ) Under Contract No. F C-9000 )
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS Appeal of -- ) ) DTS Aviation Services, Inc. ) ASBCA No. 56352 ) Under Contract No. F29651-99-C-9000 ) APPEARANCES FOR THE APPELLANT: APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT:
More informationSolving Problems Before (and After) the Ink Dries: Contract Disputes and Issues Between Primes and Subs. Gale R. Monahan J.
Solving Problems Before (and After) the Ink Dries: Contract Disputes and Issues Between Primes and Subs Gale R. Monahan J. Quincy Stott Overview Subcontracts and Common Areas of Dispute Flowdowns Negotiating
More informationCost and Accounting Items at the Top of the Ledger. Terry Albertson Rob Burton Steve McBrady Skye Mathieson
Cost and Accounting Items at the Top of the Ledger Terry Albertson Rob Burton Steve McBrady Skye Mathieson Agenda Cost and Accounting Items at the Top of the Ledger Growing Restrictions on Allowability
More informationENMAX Energy Corporation
Decision 22054-D01-2017 Regulated Rate Option Tariff Terms and Conditions Amendment Application April 12, 2017 Alberta Utilities Commission Decision 22054-D01-2017 Regulated Rate Option Tariff Terms and
More informationThe return of the taxpayer
The return of the taxpayer 1 June 2016 Keith Gordon discusses the First-tier Tribunal s decision in Revell v HMRC and the broader implications of the case What is the issue? The First-tier Tribunal s decision
More informationIMMEDIATE POLICY CHANGE
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Defense Contract Management Agency IMMEDIATE POLICY CHANGE Pricing and Negotiation Contracts Directorate DCMA-INST 120 (IPC-1) OPR: DCMA-AQ March 22, 2016 1. POLICY. This Immediate
More informationIncome Tax - CIS scheme liabilities and penalties - Appeal substantially allowed. -and-
[2016] UKFTT 0241 (TC) TC05017 Appeal no: TC/2015/02430 Income Tax - CIS scheme liabilities and penalties - Appeal substantially allowed FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL TAX ERIC DONNITHORNE Appellant -and- THE COMMISSIONERS
More informationLimitations on Pass-Through Charges. Government Contracts Update Volume 2, Nov. 2011
Limitations on Pass-Through Charges Government Contracts Update Volume 2, Nov. 2011 11/22/2011 Vol. 2, Nov 2011 Page 1 of 4 Limitations on Pass-Through Charges Two new clauses were added to the FAR effective
More informationLOCKHEED MARTIN CORPORATION CORPDOC 2A
LOCKHEED MARTIN CORPORATION CORPDOC 2A FEDERAL ACQUISITION REGULATION (FAR) AND DEFENSE FEDERAL ACQUISITION REGULATION SUPPLEMENT (DFARS) FLOWDOWN PROVISIONS FOR SUBCONTRACTS/PURCHASE ORDERS FOR COMMERCIAL
More informationTINA Sweeps and Defective Pricing (Part 1 of 2) Written by Nick Sanders
Many government contract compliance practitioners are aware of the Truth-in-Negotiations Act (or Truthful Cost or Pricing Data) or whatever the kids are calling it these days (I m calling it TINA). Whatever
More informationARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS Appeal of ~ Inframat Corporation ASBCA No. 57741 Under Contract Nos. F29601-02-C-0031 FA9300-04-C-0033 APPEARANCE FOR THE APPELLANT: Mr. Nicholas Vlahos General
More informationARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS. Appeal of -- ) ) Paranetics Technology, Inc. ) ASBCA No ) Under Contract No. DAAH01-02-D-0013 )
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS Appeal of -- ) ) Paranetics Technology, Inc. ) ASBCA No. 55329 ) Under Contract No. DAAH01-02-D-0013 ) APPEARANCE FOR THE APPELLANT: APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT:
More information119 T.C. No. 5 UNITED STATES TAX COURT. JOSEPH M. GREY PUBLIC ACCOUNTANT, P.C., Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
119 T.C. No. 5 UNITED STATES TAX COURT JOSEPH M. GREY PUBLIC ACCOUNTANT, P.C., Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent Docket No. 4789-00. Filed September 16, 2002. This is an action
More informationARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS. APPEARANCE FOR THE APPELLANT: Garreth E. Shaw, Esq. Garreth E. Shaw, P.C.
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS Appeal of -- ) ) Sigma Tech Enterprises, Inc. ) ASBCA No. 52774 ) Under Contract No. SP0451-00-W-8000 ) APPEARANCE FOR THE APPELLANT: Garreth E. Shaw, Esq. Garreth
More informationPANEL E: Costly Mistakes!
PANEL E: Costly Mistakes! How to avoid the most common pitfalls that face a growing company. Lessons learned from an operational and legal perspective that may help you make money and stay out of jail!
More informationTopics for Discussion
Government Contracting Update September 2010 Presentation By: James W. Thomas LLP PwC New and Proposed Regulations - Cost or Pricing Data - Acquisition Thresholds - Business Systems - Pensions - Security
More information(a) Master Agreement issued by Company and executed between the parties. (b) The terms of the Supplier Agreement issued by Company
This Purchase Order is between Anthem, Inc., on behalf of itself and its affiliates (individually and collectively, "Anthem"), and Supplier. The parties agree as follows: 1. Deliverables and Price. All
More informationGovernment Contracts Pricing Strategies and Rate Structures
Government Contracts Pricing Strategies and Rate Structures Presented By: Brandon Smith bsmith@anglincpa.com Jon Levin jlevin@maynardcooper.com Provisional Billing Rates Provisional, Target, Budget, Billing,
More informationAnother CDA Statute of Limitations Case, Another Contractor Victory. Written by Nick Sanders
In the recent past, we have written lessthanflattering analyses of certain decisions issued by Judges of the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals (ASBCA) decisions that involved the Statute of Limitations
More informationARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS Appeal of-- Pros Cleaners Under Contract No. FA3300-13-P-0033 APPEARANCE FOR THE APPELLANT: ASBCA No. 59797 Mr. Bruce Webber President/CEO APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT:
More informationCurrent Issues in Government Contract Accounting
Current Issues in Government Contract Accounting Jim Thomas, Partner David Eastwood, Senior Manager PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP Tysons Corner, VA Agenda Page 1 Revenue Recognition Update 1 2 Current Environment
More informationARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS Appeal of-- ) ) Thomas Associates, Inc. ) ASBCA No. 57126 ) Under Contract Nos. N61331-04-D-0007 ) NOOI78-04-D-4142 ) N61331-05-D-00 19 ) N61331-05-D-0025 ) APPEARANCE
More informationRegulatory Coordinating Committee
Regulatory Coordinating Committee Certification of Requests for Equitable Adjustment Summary to be added later. 655 Fifteenth Street, N.W. 10th floor Washington, D.C. 20005-5701 (202) 626-1468 (Telephone)
More informationARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS Appeal of -- ) ) Precision Standard, Inc. ) ASBCA No. 54027 ) Under Contract No. F41608-95-C-1176 ) APPEARANCE FOR THE APPELLANT: Nancy M. Camardo, Esq. Law Office
More information